Bayern 2-1 Manchester Utd: Ferguson loses the game with a strange substitution

March 30, 2010

0-70 mins

How on earth did Manchester United manage to lose this game? On top after twenty seconds of playing time, Rooney causing the Bayern centre-backs no end of trouble, and a spare man in the centre of the pitch, it really is quite remarkable that Bayern will go to Old Trafford with the advantage. Sir Alex Ferguson has been constantly praised on ZM for his tactics so far this season, but he might have to take the blame here.

He went with Nani ahead of Antonio Valencia – a slight surprise considering the latter is considered to be the more tactically-aware player, but perhaps not such a surprise considering Nani’s recent good run of form. Ferguson revealed in his pre-match interview that the main reason he selected Nani was his ability to play on either side of the pitch – allowing Ferguson to switch him with Park, if need be. With Park a definite starter for United in Champions League games, Nani’s versatility may be very damaging to Valencia’s hopes of starting major games for the rest of the season. His decision paid off after just one minute – Nani’s pace won a free-kick in the corner, and United were in front.

And it’s not just in wide positions that Ferguson has the ability to switch things around; in the centre of midfield he has a similar situation. Initially, Carrick started deepest, behind Fletcher right and Scholes left. With Bayern playing two deep central midfielders, it was Fletcher and Scholes in close proximity to Bayern’s midfield two – whilst Carrick was the free player. But Carrick struggled to exert any influence upon the game and his passing was poor, whilst Scholes wasn’t getting tight enough to van Bommel, so Ferguson switched things around late in the first half. Unlike in the game against Arsenal in January, where Ferguson’s switch was crucial to how the game developred, today’s change probably had little impact, for United’s ball retention didn’t get any better.

Bayern were a man light in midfield, but dominated possession in the first half. Demichelis was key in this, as he was happy to step up from the centre of defence, but equally important was the fact that Bayern’s wide midfielders play as old-style wide midfielders in a four-man midfield, rather than high wingers in a 4-3-3. This meant they generally received the ball in space, with the United full-backs 15 yards deeper, and the United wide players mainly concerned with tracking the Bayern full-backs. Ribery saw a lot of the ball but struggled to create anything meaningful (on more than one occasion his passing was dreadful) and Bayern tended to focus on that side of the pitch, with Altintop rather than Robben on the right. With Bayern posing only one major wing threat, it was slightly surprising that Nani and Park weren’t switched (since Park is better defensively) and that Fletcher was brought out of his rightish position to cover, but ultimately it wasn’t crucial.

70-90 mins

The turning point in the match was surely Ferguson’s decision to take off Carrick and Park, and replace them with Berbatov and Valencia on 70 minutes. Park for Valencia was a straight(ish) swap – Park wasn’t having his best game, but Carrick off and Berbatov on is a bizarre move. It’s easy to criticize a manager after a game when a substitution doesn’t work out, but even at the time, the most casual football fan would be able to tell you that if you’re 0-1 up away from home in a first leg, taking a midfielder off for a forward player is not the best recipe to try and defend a lead.

Perhaps Ferguson was trying to force Bayern back – United looked nervous throughout at the back and in those situations, sometimes attack is the best form of defence – especially considering Bayern’s own problems at centre-back. But the move simply gave the initiative to Bayern. They had the majority of possession throughout the game, but the effect of the substitution was simply that United had one less man behind the ball - they defended with one fewer player. That meant Bayern were able to pass their way around United, and despite their main threat usually coming from the wings, tonight their two goals came from the centre.

It might have made sense had Rooney dropped deeper, or to the wing – he’s obviously been superb upfront this season but 20 minutes tracking back in a wide role wouldn’t have hurt, and Park could have returned to the central position he played so well against Milan, but no – it was just a switch to a 4-4-1-1. And as good as Berbatov is, he was never going to be spending his 20 minutes closing van Bommel down or hassling the Bayern players. Again, Berbatov behind Rooney is the tried-and-tested tactic when United play 4-4-1-1, but this wasn’t a situation where Ferguson needed to lay his players out with the intention to get a goal, it was a situation where he needed to lay them out principally to shut up shop.

The first goal could be considered unfortunate, but the second summed up United’s problem – Scholes and Giggs couldn’t get close to the Bayern midfielders, whereas Carrick (admittedly not having his best game) is generally very good at pressing. In his post-match interview, Ferguson commented that United struggled to keep possession in the whole game, something he said his side ‘had been based around for the past two or three seasons’. Given that he acknowledged this problem, it’s difficult to see how Carrick being removed at the expense of Berbatov could have helped things. United’s only central midfield option from the bench was Darron Gibson – Ferguson surely would have introduced Anderson had he been amongst the seven – but even so, the decision will be talked about for the rest of the season unless United beat Bayern in eight days time.

Related articles on Zonal Marking:

Don’t think it was a crazy substitution at all, carrick had been god awful and berbatov held up the well when he came on. The goals came from idiotic moments from both uniteds fullbacks nothing to do with tactics, bayern were well on top when united were playing 4-5-1 too. Sometimes one team is just better than the other, that is the case tonight.

Ah, but it was to do with tactics. Carrick was poor tonight, but for the second goal Bayern simply played their way around United’s two central midfielders, without fear of a third one sweeping up behind them.

You can’t simply look at the goals and blame individual mistakes. Yes, it was pretty shocking play from both Neville and Evra, but the ball surely wouldn’t have got to Evra in the first place had United had another central midfielder on.

Bayern were on top throughout – that much is true – but the difference was they went from playing around United, to playing straight through them.

blake on March 30, 2010 at 10:39 pm

there wasn’t anything in the moves for either of the goals that hadn’t been happening all night while carrick stood around picking his nose. Ferguson took a gamble and I think Berbatov helped united hold onto the ball better, the individual mistakes had nothing to do with the shift in tactics. But we clearly disagree on that point!

Fair points, but I don’t recall Bayern playing their way through the centre as easily as they did after the subs, they had more time on the ball; Gomez should have scored, Ferdinand nearly toed it into his own net…OK Bayern had some chances throughout, but surely in terms of territory, possession AND chances, Bayern were better off playing against 4-4-1-1.

blake on March 30, 2010 at 10:50 pm

I think thats more to do with hunger and desire, plus fletcher having a rare off day where he didn’t work hard and protect scholes taking it’s toll than the shift in tactics.

I’d be interested to hear your take on what Ferguson will do without rooney in the big games coming up as it looks likely to be the case. Berbatov is the only “fit” senior striker and hes had serious trouble playing 2 games in a week as he should have had knee surgery ages ago.

Khadrim on March 30, 2010 at 10:26 pm

As the defenders were pushing up easily, I can understand the addition of a striker to occupy them. Carrick was anonymous on the pitch as is common when he faces stronger opposition. The mistake was keeping Scholes on the pitch. He got away with quite a few fouls. Nani is a flat track bully and struggles against decent full-backs. Valencia should’ve played from the start. Regardless Bayern were much better so the substitution probably wouldn’t have changed much. They had chances pior to the change

I thought it was a response to United losing possession a lot when clearing the ball. Far too often Evra would make a tackle, clear the ball only for Rooney to fail to latch onto it and Bayern would simply come forward again. If that was the intention though it might have been better to replace Nani rather than Carrick and move Rooney out wide.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Zonal Marking and Ashley Curtis, Zonal Marking. Zonal Marking said: Bayern 2-1 United: Ferguson loses the game with a crazy substitution http://bit.ly/d3Tw10 Answers on a postcard (or in the comments section) [...]

Mike A on March 30, 2010 at 10:45 pm

SAF brought Berba on because he played in Germany. Its similar to how he brought Anderson on in Portugal vs. Sporting Lisbon a few years ago.

Anderson wasn’t even in the regular 1st team squad when he made that appearence. It was a gesture to let him play vs his former league. United can’t play 4-4-2. They couldn’t beat Leeds @ OT or Everton 4-4-2. SAF has always gone 4-5-1/4-3-3 in all big Euro Cup matches since the Arsenal tie or earlier last season. He’s even used that formation for most big EPL matches this season. As poorly as Carrick was playing that is the only possible reason to explain Berba coming on IMO.

Hal on March 30, 2010 at 11:44 pm

To theorize that Ferguson put on Berbatov against a German team because he would be more familiar with his opponents, having previously played in the Bundesliga, is probably wrong, but is fair enough – but as a “gesture”! That’s insanity – Ferguson, or any top manager, is after one thing – trophies. In a big European game, he is thinking only of success, and certainly not of giving one of his players a run out because it might be nice for him!

shingai on March 31, 2010 at 4:42 am

Mike, your theory is definitely given credence by decisions such as the US Women’s coach decision in the 2007 world cup to replace his stud goalie with Scurry in the semi because “Scurry had beaten Brazil before.” If true in this case, it demonstrates just how much we overestimate the tactical nous of these men.

As much as I love tactical analysis, we gotta remember that most coaches didn’t get PhD’s in football tactics, but are ex-players that had an aptitude (read stomach) for coaching, and were often fortunate enough to have amazing players. How successful would Guardiola be, for example, if he was coaching this year’s Milan, rather than the best set of midfield players of the decade? How good would Ferguson be if he didn’t have a virtually limitless transfer budget over the course of two decades, able to purchase his dream team?

I think the reason Carrick was so poor was the great job that Muller (and Olic to some degree) did of pressing United’s deeper midfield players.

It was a good example of how the two central midfield players in a 4-4-2 can compete with the three in a 4-3-3 with support from both ends of the pitch – a defender stepping up to act as a third midfielder when you’ve got posession, and a forward dropping back to close down when you haven’t.

Yeah nice point there – fits with van Gaal feeling free to move Muller for the less energetic Gomez after United went to two central midfielders (obviously Gomez’s limited fitness was a factor too

Rob on March 30, 2010 at 11:07 pm

I’d agree that the substitutions didn’t help United, though.

I’d like to go back and watch the last 20 minutes again, but Bayern seemed to be walking through the United midfield, who were dropping further and further back. Defensively, Scholes is a liability when he plays deep and Fletcher seemed to be getting caught upfield a little too often.

Anonymous on March 31, 2010 at 3:11 pm

“I’d agree that the substitutions didn’t help United, though.”

That’s the key point. People are criticizing the article on grounds that the problem got *no worse* after the substitution. That may be true, but the sub was made to remedy the problem not maintain the status quo, hence it failed.

LW on March 31, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Yes, the subs failed. But that doesn’t mean that SAF got the tactics wrong (which I thought was the question). It could mean that the players failed to execute the strategy for the new formation correctly. I just left a comment at the bottom of the page saying why I thought the substitutions seemed right to me. It’d be interesting to hear the thoughts of the other readers.

Kevin White on March 30, 2010 at 11:13 pm

Thanks ZM, this is the best tactical review of a match I get, even tough there are an abundance of shows going on the telly !

afroblue on March 30, 2010 at 11:27 pm

“…Demichelis was key in this, as he was happy to step up from the centre of defence…”
Maybe Ferguson tried to respond to this.

guatty on March 30, 2010 at 11:46 pm

Good point… It was interesting to see how often Bayern’s center backs supported the attack by making runs with and without the ball. Perhaps in 10 years time ZM will be writing an article about how attacking center backs revolutionized the game…. also, love this site

It was a bit classic Fergy, although he normally only does it when a goal is needed. He has a tendency to throw on strikers late in Europe, and it has worked for him at times, I make that as a neutral comment rather than an insult or praise. When it doesn’t work, it looks horrible and, even worse, predictably horrible. I was a bit reminded of the Champions League final last year; replacing Anderson for Tevez was understandable in a way because of Tevez’s willingness to defend from the front, but Berbatov for Park was bewildering. Not only did taking Park off essentially change to a 3rd formation, a 4-2-4 but it left the team with no width to pressure the fullbacks, also it left basically a one man midfield at times because Scholes is not exactly a great defensive player and often tries to get forward.

Like I said, normally it is when he is a bit urgent for a goal, so the only conclusion I can make is that Ferguson thought that Bayern were there for the taking, and that he could put the tie away in the first leg by getting another goal.

It was a gamble, and it could have made him look good to some, but I don’t really think it added much firepower to the attack anyway, it slowed them down against a team somewhat prone to being countered and it left them without a good distributor of the ball.

Hal on March 30, 2010 at 11:57 pm

I must say, when I saw that Valencia and Berbatov were coming on, I thought “good, Ferguson’s read my mind” – Valencia will come on for Nani because, as ZM points out, he is more tactically aware than the Portuguese, and Berbatov will come on for Scholes, who I thought looked to be tiring, with Rooney dropping very deep, focused on pressuring Bayern’s more defensive midfielders (and Demichelis) rather than attacking himself. When Park and Carrick came off instead, I was quite surprised, because unlike some other posters, I didn’t think the two were awful, just a bit sub-par. United will need to play much better in the second leg, especially if they lack Rooney.

Mike A on March 31, 2010 at 2:18 am

SAF did it to boost Berba’s mentality. The gesture allowed Berba to go back to Germany and show he was an integral part of the team. Keeping him on the bench for all 90 would have been humiliating and could possibly weaken his mentality the rest of the season. I knew Berba would come on at some point. If it weren’t for the Anderson substitution in Portugal I wouldn’t have thought Berba would play any role tonight. Anderson wasn’t even regularly appearing on the subs bench when SAF subbed him in vs. Sporting.

Berba coming on tonight made no sense. This wasn’t like the final last year where United were chasing the game. The object was taking a 1-0 lead back to OT when Berba was introduced. SAF has exclusively used a 3 man midfield in all major Euro Cup matches since the last season. I forget if it started with the Inter tie or Porto, but at some point SAF eschewed 2 strikers in Europe for knockout ties. Taking off a central mid only increased the odds Bayern would equalize things. It was only a matter of time. SAF has eschewed 2 men upfront for most matches since the Leeds debacle. United struggled for possession vs. a League One team with 2 strikers because Leeds pressed United all over the pitch. Since then, SAF has only used 2 strikers vs. West Ham (W), Everton (L), and Fulham (W). Using 2 up top against a team that was pressing like Bayern was suicide. United were lacking possession with 3 mids, so they were only going to have less possession with 2. United can get away with it against teams that don’t press like West Ham or Fulham, but it doesn’t work against pressing teams.

Roberticus on March 31, 2010 at 3:46 am

As regards Bayern’s starting formation, ZM’s diagram illustrates it perfectly. In theorical terms I would say it is a 4-2-2-2(or an Arsenal style 4-4-2), since Van Gaal clearly gave Ribery and Altintop licence to move into central areas. What was even more remarkable was that of the two forward players, Olic and Muller , neither could be considered orthodox reference men. With Muller, who is practically a trequartista, this is obvious…but so too with Olic who has always been support-striker running the channels around a No.9. No wonder Olic looked so comfortable when switched to outside-right during the final few minutes.

Full marks to Van Gaal who read the game perfectly; observing that his players were generating endless shots on goal but failing to latch on to rebounds, he daringly put on twin target-men in Klose and Muller so as to capitalise on all those balls flying about loosely in the United box. And he could do so safe in the knowledge that he wasn’t risking a his midfield becoming understrenght, all due to the excellent offensive participation of DiMichelis, as many of you have pointed out above.

David on March 31, 2010 at 4:06 am

I agree with ZM on the key points. It was a strange substitution after all although I agree with John’s analysis that the substitution was SAF’s gamble that turned out to be a failure. With the potential title decider against Chelsea coming up in a few days, SAF wanted to seal the tie early possibly with another away goal. I think SAF took the German side a bit lightly after Rooney’s early goal. One thing I noticed was that this game looked remarkably similar to the one ManUtd lost after an early lead back in Jan or Feb (I think it was against Everton). In that game, SAF also sacrificed Park in favour of Berbatov after 60 minutes. I think ManUtd should have approached this game with 442 with Berbatov and Rooney upfront and Park and Valencia on each side of the four men midfield. The result tonight will limit the options for tactical changes available for SAF in the return leg. Also, remember that van Gaal is tactically almost as astute as Hiddink. It would be another tactical battle at Old Trafford.

Manny on March 31, 2010 at 4:15 am

Great point about the Bayern wide men playing as traditional wide midfielders and a good deal deeper. I thought Lahm and Badstuber did a pretty terrible job of overlapping even though both Ribery and Altintop constantly made space for them, though that might have more to do with Van Gaal fearing the United counter.

Interesting also to see Fletcher moved in front of Scholes/Carrick around the hour-mark. Van Bommel enjoyed space and time on the ball after that and you saw him brush both off with his strength/height several times over the last half hour.

kamikaze kontiki on March 31, 2010 at 6:53 am

Fergie’s substitution was the key as you have pointed out. It was a big mistake because untill then Bayern couldn’t get the ball through that midfield wall of Man Utd’s. What I want to know is why didn’t Van Gaal make a sub and add a player in the centre who can provide the link between the forwards and the midfield. Doesn’t he have a player who can play that position ? I know Schweinsteiger was injured but Bayern were just having so much trouble getting the ball into the final third of the pitch.

Overall poor subs by Ferguson and poor preparation by Van Gaal.

And someone please tell me what Muller does on the pitch?

Naka on March 31, 2010 at 10:13 am

Muller does a huge amount of work off the ball – not just in making runs which take defenders with him when Bayern are in possession, but also in dropping off to pick up the deepest opposing midfieder when they lose the ball – he has been very effective for Bayern this season. Not saying he’s a fantastic player, but he does his bit.

Alex on April 1, 2010 at 11:54 pm

If you don’t even know what Muller does, how can you comment on Bayerns tactics? Then you ask why Van Gaal didn’t add a player who could link the attack…(hint- that would be Muller). Lastly, you claim that Van Gaal was guilty of “poor preparation”. What? His tactics worked brilliantly. After Man u’s early goal, they parked the bus- any side was going to have trouble breaking through the wall that Man U put up. The two options for Van Gaal were to either pass and press fast, hard, and repeatedly or lob long balls up top. Obviously, Van Gaal wasn’t going to attempt the latter (even aside from not starting with a no.9), so pursuing the former strategy was always going to require patience, above all else. By keeping the indefatigable Olic on till the end, he was betting that Man U- having been worn out by the constant defending (of which they are completely not used to)- would make a defensive error/lapse in concentration. And that is exactly what happened. Man U simply isn’t used to being on the back-foot for the majority of the match and it showed at the end.

PC on March 31, 2010 at 8:14 am

So the Berbatov sub was an attempt to retain possession better. Pretty tough part of the pitch to keep the ball for long with Van Bommel and co around, but what do I know?

Maybe I’ve been watching Italian football for too long, but I would have thought that at 20 minutes to go and with a 1-0 lead, going with a defensive 4-5-1, stringing two close bands across the front of goal and weathering the storm might have been better. Carrick and Park may not have been setting the world on fire but they could still run around and make a defensive effort.

Bayern have kept a similar shape for much of this season and have generally avoided (on the 6 or 7 occasions I’ve watched them) being crowded out in midfield by having DiMichaelis (a v. good footballer) step out of defence to stem attacks or launch them for his own team, and by Muller dropping deep when Bayern lose possession – which he did here, picking up United’s deepest midfielder. Simple but very effective, and clever from Van Gaal.

lubo on March 31, 2010 at 10:50 am

I’m glad this website recognises what a good game Demichelis had. I was watching the game thinking what a positive difference he made by stepping up to midfield. But the commentators on Sky couldn’t get beyond one foul at the beginning of the game (admittedly not a good one which led to the free kick) and a slip when marking Rooney (for God’s sake, surely slipping doesn’t make you a bad player!)

Even at the post match review Redknapp was saying Demichelis had a terrible game. I couldn’t have disagreed more.

McStay on March 31, 2010 at 11:35 am

It is hugely interesting the impact that commentators and pundits have on the “masses” opinion of how a player/team plays.

The main issue I have is often in the studio, you have people who aren’t exactly experts. Certain former players are by far the worst, but even some managers can make startlingly idiotic comments..

I know it’s only opinions but its easy for people to take Ian Wright’s (for example) opinion as fact..

Ronan on March 31, 2010 at 11:19 am

I was looking at the Bayern side and I can only imagine that, for the second leg, Van Gall will be hoping that Robben is not fully fit. It would be suicidal (see AC Milan v United) if he were to field both Robben and Ribery away from home in the second leg.

Altintop was very effective on the right flank, as his experience as a right back gave him the tactical awareness to control one of United’s most dangerous outlets, Evra. If we see Robben in this potion next week, it would give United Carte Blanche to raid down the left time and again.

Naka on March 31, 2010 at 11:23 am

Interesting thought. Robben should still play though – maybe on the left with Ribery in the middle? Mind you, I don’t see LVG ditching his preferred system of “Rib” right and “Rob” left.

PC on March 31, 2010 at 11:29 am

Good point. Bayern can probably get away with a midfield containing both Ribery and Robben against your average Bundesliga side, but might be a bit of a risk at Old Trafford.

There could be some tired legs for the second leg, with Schalke and Chelsea as the weekend opponents.

Anonymous on March 31, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Evra is always exhausted at this time of year. I doubt he’ll be able to contain Robben much less bomb up the flank.

McStay on March 31, 2010 at 11:36 am

I think having one on the bench would be a wonderful “Ace” card to play when things get tough or to cover injuries to other key players.

KW on March 31, 2010 at 11:46 am

Ferguson’s midfield (& defense to some extent) let him down (again) by giving the ball away much too often. The intial game plan was probably right in my opinion but this is something we see from United against top class opposition; They have a group of midfielders and defenders who are prone to losing their nerve when pressured (especially away from home).

Oli on March 31, 2010 at 11:47 am

Hi there.

It’s my first post but I have been a keen reader for some time.

I think that what Ferguson was trying to do by taking of a midfielder and placing Berbatov on the pitch was a way of playing the midfield 4 deeper without just throwing the ball away every time they got a hold of it. With two attackers up front you always have the ability to sit deep with the midfield and punt it up long to the two strikers who can keep the ball and still be an attacking threat. Also, as you say yourself, this could be a move to prevent Demichelis coming out of defence with the ball at his feet.

Wrong move though and I agree with you regarding the last goal. I dont think that would have happened if Carrick were still on the pitch in a 4-5-1 formation.

Sid on March 31, 2010 at 11:53 am

Great Article. ManU took the lead and lost the desire to play. They became complacent. Bayern on the other hand, drew motivation and started running around like Crazy. Their play reminded me of Arsenal 0f 2004 – Super pace, decent passing. All this was supported by great game from Ribery with his ceaseless running and dribbling. I loved the way he positioned himself intelligently between Nanin and Neville to recieve the ball and his willingness to take on neville and Ferdinand

My take on the ManU substitutions

Valencia – To add more attack to the ManU game, sot hat Bayern get pushed back and have to attack from the deep

Berbatov – Rooney Vs Demichellis was an even contest and he was doing a decent job all alone. SAF probably felt that a little support to Rooney and you have a goal.

Roberticus on March 31, 2010 at 3:00 pm

I agree with your comparison with the classic Arsenal set-up, Sid.

In fact, it is tactically identical:

a 4-4-2 which segues into 4-2-2-2 (Pires and Ljunberg = Ribery and Altintop) since the offensive midfielders had licence to advance diagonally into central areas. Two resilient central midfielders who can alternate, one holding and the other going forward (Vieira and Edu = Van Bommel and Pjanic). And two forwards who offer movement and link up the play in Olic and Muller, neither of whom were traditional No.9’s of any description (as per Henry and Bergkamp or Wiltord)

Sid on March 31, 2010 at 4:27 pm

But they didnt have the deadliness of the Henry of those days, did they?

Another difference was the Wingbacks. Ashley Cole on the left was more similar to Lahm on the right.

Busby on March 31, 2010 at 12:32 pm

I think Fergie just wanted a second goal. It is worth risking conceding since 2-0 away would have killed the tie, and 1-1 still have been a great result in the downside scenario. It is unfortunate that just when Bayern looked to be running out of ideas, they scored an extremely lucky free kick (has there ever been a more poorly struck free kick that led to a goal?). This gave them the impetus to kick on and win the game.

PC on March 31, 2010 at 12:54 pm

I assumed the same thing, but in his post-match interview he said he put Berbatov on to help retain possession.

Anonymous on March 31, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Running out of ideas? They were putting tons of pressure on Man U and were unlucky to not have scored earlier.

heinrich.nst on March 31, 2010 at 1:20 pm

What surprised me most was the total lack of motivation from the MU-side.
Something that is almost never an issue for Fergie’s teams.MU underestimated Bayern, from this point of view the early goal was the worst thing could have happened. To be fair, it is difficult to take Gomez seriously when he is outside the penalty box, trying hard to dribble.
MU not only couldn’t keep possession but were also deconcentrated, just check out pass accuracy. Utterly rubbish performance against a mediocre Bayern.

Roberticus on March 31, 2010 at 2:51 pm

Hey Zonal Marking,

you’ve just been namechecked on Marca’s website, I kid you not.

Whatever about their complete lack of journalistic ethics or integrity, do bear in mind that they are the biggest selling daily (more than mainstream newspapers) in Spain

Great article! But I thought the substitutions were well-thought by SAF (maybe poorly executed by the players).

Before the subs, it seemed like one of the Bayern CBs surged often into the midfield comfortable in the knowledge that the other would mark Rooney. Although MU had 3 men in the midfield, they didn’t seem to be able to contain the CB either because they were occupied by one of the wingers cutting in or forwards dropping deep, or because the CB was running at them from a distance (like the Bayern wingers vs MU fullbacks as you mentioned).

To take care of that, as well as the space available for the Bayern wingers, it seemed normal that SAF wanted to have two forwards to occupy both the Bayern CBs. And the addition Valencia allowed the MU wide-forwards to drop deeper to the positions of traditional wingers. Maybe the reasoning was that this way, they could be closer to Ribery and Altintop and close them down earlier.

Based on that reasoning, what I can’t understand is how Bayern still managed to threaten through the middle and MU still couldn’t retain any possession. Was the substitution too late? Were the MU players unable to lift themselves up due to being beaten constantly?

Fair points, certainly. But what I would contend is the point about the centre-back Demichelis stepping up into the midfield. This was certainly a key feature of the game, but the main reason he did this was because United had 3 v 2 in the centre of midfield. Berbatov forced Demichelis back, but then United didn’t have their numerical advantage in the centre any longer.

Perhaps the better option would be to put Berbatov on for Nani, playing a lopsided 4-3-2 plus one winger (leaving one full-back free and asking Rooney to cover him when United were without the ball). But this is, of course, with the benefit of 18 hours’ hindsight, I certainly wouldn’t have thought to do that at the time, although the withdrawal of Carrick did seem odd even then.

LW on March 31, 2010 at 3:45 pm

Fair point. Maybe SAF was being less defensive than we imagine. Maybe if the midfield threat had been countered as he expected, then Scholes was more of the goal-threat than Carrick? Not sure how convincing that is, I’m just trying to think of a reason for removing Carrick instead of Scholes…

MisoSoup on March 31, 2010 at 3:23 pm

I thought SAF brought Berba on to stop Demichelis running past Rooney. Probably a good idea but I would have thought moving Park into that space would be the better option.

Oh and Marca (a spanish football paper) has been namechecked on ZM!

David on April 1, 2010 at 4:06 am

I agree. Park behind Rooney would have been more effective both defensively and in terms of creating chances.

1. The Evra and Park flank was overplayed by lahm and altintop who both had some good crosses. Maybe Park has an excuse in the fact he changes position from game to game but Evra was just poor. By his very high standards is was a awful night which culminated with the 2-1 goal where he failed to react.

2. After the 1st goal Man U played too deep. Their back 4 were at 20-25m and their midfield were at 30-35m. That is just asking for trouble. They rarely went on the counter so I didn’t really understood why they stood so deep.

3. Rooney started the game in a perfect way but then he got suddenly nervous. He started to argue with the referee, he went down pretty easy a couple of times asking for free kicks. Then he missed a few 1st touches in good areas and he grew in frustration ending with an yellow. I really didn’t get why he was so nervous so soon after the bright start.

4. Bayern fought to the death. They took the goal on the chin but kept going forward and creating chances.

5. Olic didn’t impressed me for 91 minutes, he missed a sitter and looked like was never gonna score BUT his work-rate and stamina are impressive. In the 92nd minute he was fresh and stole the ball from the tired boot of Evra, kept his cool in front of (the excellent) V der sar and scored. That’s why he at bayern.

[...] Bayern 2-1 Manchester United: Ferguson loses the game with a strange substitution “How on earth did Manchester United manage to lose this game? On top after twenty seconds of playing time, Rooney causing the Bayern centre-backs no end of trouble, and a spare man in the centre of the pitch, it really is quite remarkable that Bayern will go to Old Trafford with the advantage. Sir Alex Ferguson has been constantly praised on ZM for his tactics so far this season, but he might have to take the blame here.” (Zonal Marking) [...]

Thor Magnus on March 31, 2010 at 8:28 pm

Thanks for a great article, ZM!

Going one nil ahead so early did not make United complacent – then they wouldn’t have been so nervous. There must have been a different reason for the poor passing and inability to keep possession. United seemed to lack their usual patience – as if they had already started to think about the Chelsea game.

Interesting to follow the debate concerning Fergie’s substitutions. Personally, I think he should have brought Rooney off after 60 minutes. Yes, easy to say so in retrospect, given that he was injured. But my reasons for saying this is that he looked jaded (and a bit nervous as someone pointed out above). When he is not in flow you can easily see this from his body language – he’ll start whingeing and swearing and the way he throws his arms out in a gesture of hopelessness and frustration. With Chelsea coming up, he should have been taken off and had a rest.

United had already got a precious away goal, why not just take him off? That way, they could have put Berbatov on for Rooney, in a 451. Berbatov alone up front would have been able to hold onto the ball/flick it on for the advancing winger. SAF then should have put Park in central (given that he took Carrick off), and if that didn’t work he would then have the option of replacing Park with Giggs. If Park had adapted, then Giggs could have replaced Scholes instead.

Surely, it was more important to preserve Rooney’s freshness than keeping him on in the vain hope he would score a second goal?
The main thing was to shut up shop, something United have done well away in Europe the last couple of years.

With this formation they could have tried to ride their luck until the end.

Carrick: It’s been evident in recent weeks that he is off form – uncharacteristically misplacing passes and not seeming to concentrate fully. It is not true what someone else said in a post above that he never plays well against good sides. He was truly magnificent away at Inter last year (something the Italian papers admitted). But he had a dip in form after the 1-4 loss to Liverpool and never seemed to regain his confidence (he was poor in CL final against Barca).

But with Hargreaves and Anderson injured, SAF does not have many option in midfield if he plays 433.

SAF has been called the master of squad rotation. But Evra should have been rested for the Bolton game (or at least taken off early). No wonder he looked jaded – he’s the only team member who never gets a rest.

As for the return leg – perhaps it’s worth pointing out that United lost 2-1 away at Roma three years ago (and were lucky not to lose to a greater margin). And we know what happened at OT. Of course, Bayern are different, especially with Ribery and Robben. United have to be careful not to get caught on the counterattack. Without Rooney, United’s best bet will be to play with a patient approach, going for a 1-0 victory.

Anonymous on April 2, 2010 at 11:32 pm

To be fair, evra could use a rest but who would united play in his place?
O’shea was injured at the time, Fabio is injured, De Laet was injured, Wes brown is injured. The only option would have been to play rafael at LB when that is not his natural position and i have a feeling he might have been injured.

Ferguson really didn’t have an option.

Non de Plume on April 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm

ZM, solid analysis although i dont agree on a number of points. And im apalled at the focus on Ferguson and Man Utd alone. Seems like Bayern just didnt do anything. No mention of Van Gaal and how he got Mueller to step down from playing a conventional forward role to that of a more withdrawn one? That meant he got tight on Carrick and stemmed a creative threat for Utd.

Also, i personally feel that the Berbatov substitution is warranted. Ferguson’s thinking was that he wanted to curb the advances of Demichelis into midfield to join as the spare man. With two forwards, he could expect both to sit on each other defender.

Also, the thinking behind Park on the left was to curb the attacking advances of Lahm, and Park did that quite well up until his substitution which gave Lahm the freedom to move upfront and deliver some telling balls.

Nani on the right was a no-brainer. Badstuber is young and Nani is tricky.

Btw, the tone of this summary smells a little of Utd. A hint of favoritism there?

a) The Berbatov change did limit Demichelis’ runs, but it turned the midfield battle 3 v 2 in United’s favour to 2 v 2. If he’d wanted to do that, he could have pushed Park into ‘Berbatov role’ in the centre and brought on Giggs on the left, or something like that…?
b) It is a bit one-sided, that is true. I always try to be balanced with the analysis, but in this case I felt that (a) Ferguson lost it more than van Gaal won it, and (b) Something like 75% of the viewers of this site are British, so it makes sense to come at it from a British perspective
c) Isn’t that generally Muller’s position? Certainly in the two games against Fiorentina in the last round he played a similar kind of role.
d) And no, I’m not a United fan!

Non de Plume on April 2, 2010 at 3:09 pm

On the Mueller position, its not really where he plays. I would expect Van Gaal to go with a more 4231 with Mueller pulled back, but often I have seen him start with two stable forwards up front. Which is I think slightly foolish by Van Gaal because it often leaves the wingers isolated when teams double up on them.

Also, I do agree. Utd did lose the game more than Bayern winning it.

Alex on April 2, 2010 at 3:36 am

One player who (pleasantly) surprised me was Pranjic. Having played most of his career at what is basically a village club(Heerenveen), he’s had a hard time adapting to the pressures of a big club like Bayern. The fact that he’s a wide (left) player who-to the best of my knowledge- has never played centrally in a midfield pair, made his performance (and selection by Van Gaal) even more impressive. Upon hearing his position before the match, I cringed- I thought it a disaster waiting to happen. Add Pranjic’ absolutely tiny frame- he’s an Aaron Lennon-esque 5′ 7″- and one could reasonably accuse Van Gaal of having lost his mind…
So, credit to both the player and the manager who believed in him.

[...] must surely be ruing his substitutions in Munich, which surely cost them the game. His decision to remove the admittedly poorly-performing Carrick in favour of Berbatov left United [...]

JediRage on April 19, 2010 at 6:10 am

If Ferguson wants to play a 4-4-1-1 with Berbatov and Rooney then Rooney should be the one in the ‘hole’ because
a)he’s energetic and has the physical ability to outmuscle anyone on the ball
b)he can track defensive midfielders
c)he can make fast runs into the box to draw defenders
d)Berbatov is best left to remain in the box and finish off moves
e)Berba doesn’t run a whole lot so whenever he comes deep, he doesn’t make much of an effort to run into the box again

In any case with regards to the quarterfinal, it was shocking to see Bayern Munich dominate possession in Munich and at Old Trafford. It was even more surprising to see it at Old Trafford because being 3-0 down within 20 minutes would kill any side off but to have the belief to keep the ball and pass it around was astonishing to watch. As much as i felt that Nani and Rooney deserved to have carried United into the semifinals, I knew United were going to crash out once Olic scored the goal and Rafael got sent off. The second goal was inevitable and had Robben not scored, they definitely would have found another chance.

boomboom on March 30, 2010 at 11:44 pm

Bayern’s winning goal had absolutely nothing to do with the substitutions.
Bayern were just better in the 2nd half and 2 awful mistakes from neville and evra, and they deserved the win
(united fan)

The Increment on March 31, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Shingai, this is a ridiculous claim to make. Why, with a very similar set of players did Barca win nothing for the two years before Guardiola gained control? How could you not come to the conclusion that his management played a massive part in the team’s success? For a coach in his first season to win literally every prize available is without precedent and to just put it down to the quality of players is almost an insult to Guardiola.

I wonder how Ferguson would manage without being able to rely on money? Perhaps he’d put more emphasis on youth development and bring through a generation of exceptionally talented players like Giggs, Beckham and Scholes who brought the club huge success. Or maybe he’d make shrewd signings like Cantona for £1m or Schmeichel for less than £1m or Ronaldo for just £12m. Sure, he’s had a lot of money to spend, but this is in no small part down to the success he has generated himself, helping to make United one of the most recognisable names in world football. Look at the truly “limitless transfer budgets” that Man City now have – why aren’t they topping the league?

Glen Tuohey on March 31, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Money does rule the premier league as proven in the ‘Soccernomics’ book.

Ferguson isn’t as much of a genius in the transfer market as you make him out to be.

Josef on April 1, 2010 at 5:45 pm

literally the only drawback to this site is the rabid United presence with their “SAF is clearly a genius, the vast sums of $ he has spent (and wasted: Veron, Berbatov, Saha etc) have nothing to do with it and neither do referee favoritism, and his tactics are always right, when they lose it’s down to bad luck, and don’t look behind that curtain!” Posts about Man U draw way more comments than most others, and the commenters are all motivated by their emotions re: Man U.

Also, Ronaldo cost double what you quoted, 23 million not 12.

The Increment on March 31, 2010 at 2:11 pm

I’m not denying that Ferguson has made plenty of poor transfer moves, and of course money is important for teams, but to basically say his success is a result of United’s financial prowess is silly. Was he blessed with massive amounts of money as he took Aberdeen to amazing success?

shingai on March 31, 2010 at 3:24 pm

@The Increment

That same set of players you refer to won the 2006 Champions League and the 2005 and 2006 La Liga titles. They had been a very successful group whose key players were getting a bit jaded. Guardiola did some Bonzai-style trimming (Dinho and Deco to name a few), made some (slight) personnel changes, and the team was rejuvenated.

I’m not saying Ferguson is not a great coach. I’m just saying let’s not exaggerate the tactical “genius” of coaches who are wildly successful with ridiculously good players. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out where to put a great player like Messi with sublime ball handlers like Xavi and Iniesta. Guardiola’s contribution (and even Ferguson’s) is less tactical and more man-management/motivational. The squads they have pick themselves – evident by the fact that so many here can successfully predict the formations that these teams use.

The difference between two managers who use the same formations is the discipline that they instill in their players to execute a fairly straightforward gameplan. That is Fergusons’s greatness.

But no, he’s no tactical genius given what he was to work with.

shingai on March 31, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Also, football is like any other profession. Most coaches/players are average. Citing the Soccernomics book that Glen mentioned, most decision-makers (owners, football directors, etc) actually make rather poor, emotional decisions across most aspects of management, including financial.
You don’t have to be a “genius” to be very successful in football. You really only need to be more competent than the average. Hence, the folks that are “good” look so much better/smarter than everyone else.

The Increment on March 31, 2010 at 4:09 pm

@shingai

I take your points, man management is probably Ferguson’s greatest asset, but his tactical changes have been important. He’s shifted from a 442 to a 433 in order to adapt to the challenge in Europe and although it took time it’s resulted in much success.

Also, you can only judge people/teams by their peers, so if someone is better than most then that is still deserving of praise. Being wildly successful with ridiculously good players isn’t all that easy – just ask the various managers of Real Madrid over the past eight years.

John J on April 1, 2010 at 8:01 pm

Ronaldo cost 12 million,every simpleton knws this, have no idea where you pulled that from.